Posts Tagged ‘SPLC’

Letter from Bill White – July 14, 2010 – Resistance Advice

July 23, 2010

Update: July 27, 2010 – now I have the first part of the letter posted as well as the last. I did this rather quickly, so I may need to tidy it up, later. (Note: all those spelling errors in the earlier post of this letter, now corrected, were mine, not Bill’s! Okay, I hate this proofreader, but that’s no excuse. )

The “news” Bill mentions concerns Craig Cobb, Ed Steele, Spencer “The Sniper” Poet and others who have been WN topics of interest this summer. I usually try to cram as many short news stories into as few pages as I can, and that has meant I tend not to include pro-white news sources, since they usually have much longer articles on each topic. I believe that’s what Bill is complaining about in the “SPLC crap” paragraph. – americafarm

***

“Thanks for the recent news and update.

What a parade of pointless and self-indulgent behavior. Is anything good happening out there?

I’m shocked Craig Cobb is foolish enough to return to the US or Canada. He knows why. I guess he just lacks the desire to preserve himself.

I don’t believe the Ed Steele murder accusations, on their face. Two major things are wrong. First, the government’s informant planted a bomb. If you’ve ever seen an FBI operation of this nature (and I have seen many), they don’t just give their informants the opportunity to plant a bomb with the lead conspirator. They might provide a fake bomb – though, usually, the “bomb” is a “ghost bomb” – it doesn’t exist. That detail of the story, in conjunction with all the people who have said they have been asked to commit crimes and “violent acts of domestic terrorism”, is amazing – and should be the lead paragraph of the story – not buried in the middle.

Second, this witness intimidation charge seems bogus. They may be using it to enhance the statutory maximum, but it seems weak. I don’t see much reason they would add a weak charge to a strong case – I can only assume the murder case is weak, too.

I also just don’t believe Ed would kill anyone – not to mention his wife.

Is the whole internet now run by leftist-cadre? Are there no white news services? What is all this ARA/SPLC crap. Is no one still fighting those guys?

Glenn’s run for office is just playing around. I’m glad he’s making waves, but I wish he’d approach things seriously. Why can’t he petition for the ballot and run a serious campaign?

[Deleted paragraph regarding a another case.]

I was not aware of this guy ["The Sniper" Poet] Spencer, but he is in for a surprise at sentencing. There are fewer dumber things you can do than make a blind plea in a federal case. His attorney probably miscalculated his [sentencing] guidelines. I have seen a ton of people who thought they were getting 12-18 months on threat cases get 40-50 months: 12 base +3 govt. official + 6 intent to carry out minus 1 guilty plea and no credit for [undecipherable]. It’s routine.

What people don’t understand is this: If you go to trial, the government must present evidence and follow the rules of evidence. In most courtrooms, they must prove by a preponderance of evidence all of the sentencing factors and relevant conduct ( enhancements) during the trial phase. They can then elaborate at sentencing.

When you plea, they put their case on at sentencing, and you lose the ability to effectively cross-examine and challenge evidence – because you agreed to it. This is why the feds bring bogus cases and think they “always win” – because only 4% of inmates hold them to “beyond a reasonable doubt” – most of those being hopeless cases – and 96% plea and allow the government to merely prove themselves “by a preponderance of evidence.”

Federal judges are of ridiculously low caliber and federal public defenders (and many paid lawyers) are just as bad. The FBI, in my experience, is a really half-rate law enforcement agency. Most of their cases are made on perjury from “snitches”. But these lawyers tell their clients “the feds never lose you have to plea” “you have to snitch” – and guys just break down. To be honest – had I received that kind of advice, there was a point I may have caved, too (though as one of my lawyers says – always make them think you’re about to cave – they expect it, and it keeps them off guard.)

Anyway, sad news.

If you end up printing this, let me say this: The best way to become the target of a federal investigation is to be an informant. Must federal inmates are informants. The best way to screwed in a federal case is to plea, followed by sitting in detention watching rap videos on BET while telling yourself “everything will be okay.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn noted that the best way to deal with the KGB was to resist and not stop resisting from the moment of the attempted arrest. I was too foolish to see this, two years ago – and I knew better. Now, I know a whole lot better.

The best thing is to stay out of US jurisdiction. Next best is not to do deliberately dumb things to draw attention to yourself. But to coöperate, inform, or give in to these people is just suicide. Even here if I wasn’t fighting, I’d be much worse off.

Thanks for the news,

Sincerely,
Bill White”

Hate is not a crime, but so what?

June 30, 2010

Let’s just pretend that it is and hand “haters” over to negroid and sodomite juries which will lock those uppity whites in prison for the rest of their lives! We don’t need no stinkin’ judges or their silly old law books!

From the SPLC [Sodomite Poopshooters (Karmic) Law Center] web site:

Neo-Nazi Bill White Facing Jury Intimidation Trial
Posted in Neo-Nazi by Larry Keller on June 28, 2010

The article is at : http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/06/28/neo-nazi-bill-white-facing-jury-intimidation-trial/

Good comment on the article:

beholder said, on June 29th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
“Let me see if I understand this.The CoA disagreed with district Judge Adelman, who stepped in after all the Chicago judges stepped aside from this case. Adelman dismissed the indictment, stating in the opinion:“Knowledge or belief that one’s speech, even speech advocating law breaking, may cause others to act, does not remove the speech from the protection of the First Amendment unless the speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.”But, the CoA sent it back to district court and ordered a jury to determine intent of the comments that the prosecutors obviously believed were threatening enough to bring forward an indictment.So I am wondering why did the CoA rule that a jury must decide White’s intent, given that Adelman had already dismissed the indictment. What’s the rationale?Did the CoA disagree with Adelman’s opinion that the knowledge or belief of what might occur from one’s speech is not sufficient to remove 1st Amd protections, if there is a not a direct incitement to violence, and that the indictment had merit? Or are they saying that only a jury can determine that, and not the judge, which seems to be more likely? Carter are you saying Adelman might have thrown out the indictment for fear that it would lead to a mistrial in the other cases where White was convicted?

I couldn’t find the text of Adelman’s opinion — United States v. White, 638 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Ill. 2009) — only parts of it in news articles. Nor could I find the CoA ruling to see what the nitty gritty of it was.

In very broad terms, if it means what I infer, then the CoA is saying the People (vis-a-vis a jury) should decide criminal intent in hate speech and not the Judiciary (vis-a-vis a judge). Since unlawful intent of hate speech can be difficult to prove (hate itself not being unlawful), it seems like a very relevant case.”

Appellate Court overturns Judge Adelman’s dismissal of charge

June 30, 2010

Court document – “Although First Amendment speech protections are far-reaching, there are limits… …So, whether or not the First Amendment protects White’s right to post personal information about Juror A first turns on his intent in posting that information. If White’s intent in posting Juror A’s personal information was to request that one of his readers harm Juror A, then the crime of solicitation would be complete. No act needed to follow, and no harm needed to befall Juror A. If, on the other hand, White’s intent was to make a political point about sexual orientation or to facilitate opportunities for other people to make such views known to Juror A, then he would not be guilty of solicitation because he did not have the requisite intent required for the crime. White argues that NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), stands for the proposition that the only permissible view of his posting is to see it as a constitutionally protected expression and subject to the Brandenburg test. In Claiborne, black citizens of Claiborne County, Mississippi, sent a letter to white merchants with a list of particularized demands for racial equality and integration. After receiving an unsatisfactory response, they began a boycott that lasted years. Several of the white merchants sued members of the boycott to recover losses and enjoin further boycott activity, and won. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld liability as to 92 participants by finding that members had agreed to use force, violence and threats to ensure compliance with the boycott, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that an individual could not be held liable for his mere association with an organization whose members engage in illegal acts. Id. at 920. Claiborne primarily focused on the constitutionality of group-based liability, but it also concluded that Charles Evers, the field secretary of the NAACP and chief proponent of the boycott at the time, could not be held liable based on his “emotionally charged rhetoric.” Id. at 928. In speeches given before and during the boycott, Evers stated that there would be “discipline” coming to those who did not participate in the boycott, and that any “uncle toms” would “have their necks broken.” Id. at 900 n.28. …White’s argument boils down to this: his posting was not a solicitation and because it is not a solicitation, it is speech deserving of First Amendment protection. The government sees the posting in the opposite light: the posting and website constitute a solicitation and as such, fall outside the parameters of First Amendment protection…”

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100628129


From the SPLC blog, July 23, 2009 [Bill White] had been scheduled for trial in Chicago next month, but U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman this week dismissed the indictment charging White with soliciting harm against the juror… “The posting of personal information about an individual involved in a judicial proceeding, even under circumstances that are intimidating or unsettling, cannot, absent a true threat or an incitement to imminent lawless action, be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment,” wrote Adelman in the 35-page decision.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/07/23/3281/